Posted by Rod Heggy on September 16, 2006 to Due to immigrants, it seems, doctors and nurses are not hired, raises are not given, and obsolete medical equipment is not being updated. Is it possible immigrants are milking the system even more than the poor citizenry? Or, is this assertion an example of corrupt race hatred?
One of my favorite magazines, World Magazine, reported in its September 16, 2006 issue, in an article by John Dawson, that the border states and their hospitals are paying for the medical treatment of thousands of illegal aliens. Federal law requires, according to World, that the border hospitals treat through their emergency rooms anyone that seeks aid, regardless of ability to pay or citizenship.
But, this has been the law of the land for many years.
In Oklahoma, for example, 800,000 state citizens, at last report, a third of the state citizenry, use Oklahoma hospital emergency rooms as their primary source of medical treatment and the taxpayers of Oklahoma pay their bills because the indigent patients cannot. Indeed, only a few years ago, the Oklahoma legislature projected that the cost of the medical treatment of these 800,000 state citizens carried with it the risk of destabilizing the state budget, or devouring it. This was true in Oklahoma without so much as a mention of immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
Federal promises to cover the costs of immigrant medical treatment, just like older promises to cover the costs of medical treatment of citizen indigents, have been unmet, according to World Magazine. Border states and hospitals claim to be in crisis mode because of these costs, just as Oklahoma hospitals have been in perpetual crisis due to the cost of caring for the poor and uninsured.
Would illegal aliens cross the border to obtain medical care if they could get it at home?
United States churches apparently have not seen fit to provide medical care south of the border. Foreign aid apparently does not provide medical care south of the border.
Sadly, World Magazine did not compare the present “immigrant medical care crisis” to the pre-existing “indigent citizen medical care” crisis.
World Magazine did not compare the border states to the interior states. As a result of the poor methodology, World Magazine defaulted to prejudice and concluded the immigrants were draining the medical resources of the land, even though poor citizens had the same impact on the system. World Magazine concluded the immigrants were levying a “stealth tax” on the unfortunate border states and their hospitals, but failed to mention the same “stealth tax” the citizen poor were levying in prior years.
Finally, World Magazine did not inquire further as to the failure of North American Christianity to address the medical needs of the citizen poor, much less the immigrant poor.
How did World Magazine miss the mark so completely? There is only one logical explanation.
Prejudice.
Posted by Terry Hull on June 16, 2006 to 1975. Morelos, Zacatecas.
Miguel and Maria and their 2-year-old, Angelina, live in Morelos, a village in Zacatecas, Mexico. Famous for its silver mines, Zacatecas was once one of the richest states of Mexico, but today more than half the population lives in poverty. Many jobs have moved from Mexico to China in recent years, and there are few opportunities in Zacatecas for young people like Miguel and Maria.
The young family has finally decided to follow in the steps of many Zacatecans. Moving to the United States will mean leaving relatives and their hometown behind, risking their lives to make the border crossing, and struggling to survive as illegal immigrants in the U.S.
But there are no jobs in Morelos, and they have a daughter to provide for. Miguel and Maria’s dream is for Angelina to grow up with a better life than the one they have known.
1990.
McAllen, Texas. Maria and 17-year-old Angelina have lived in Hidalgo County for 15 years. Miguel was killed in a farming accident 10 years ago.
Maria works full-time as a waitress to provide for Angelina and two younger daughters. They don’t have much, but the life they have is better in many ways than what Maria knew growing up in Morelos.
Angelina may have been born in Mexico, but she has no memory of that place.
She learned Spanish from her parents and still speaks it with her mom, but as a first-grader in McAllen public school, Angelina was a quick learner. Soon she was speaking English fluently. Among the first English words Angelina ever learned were the words of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Angelina knows that some people consider her an “illegal,” but her face turns red and her throat tightens when someone calls her a “Mexican.” The United States is the only home she has ever known.
This is a big year for Angelina.
Last month she graduated from high school. Next month she is getting married. She is engaged to Ricardo, a member of the youth group of Iglesia Bautista, the bilingual Baptist church she has attended since a neighbor first invited her to Sunday School when she was 9.
Ricardo works construction and Angelina works as a checker at the H-E-B grocery. Angelina plans to take classes two nights a week at the community college. Soon she will be married and start a family, and her dream is to give her children a better life than the one she has known.
2006. Dallas, Texas. Emma came along 11 months after Ricardo and Angelina were married.
Fifteen years later, Emma is a freshman at a Dallas high school. Emma divides her time between girls basketball, digital photography, and instant messaging. Her favorite TV show is “American Idol,” although she can’t believe Taylor Hicks won.
She loves Shakira, especially now that she’s finally recorded an album in English.
Like almost every Texan, Emma knows a little Spanish, including a few phrases she has picked up from her parents. But English is the only language Emma really knows.
Her parents were born in Mexico, but neither of them have been back since they were toddlers. Emma has never been there.
Like most American teenagers, Emma has way too many other things to think about to be concerned with the country of her grandparents.
She’s a good student, and she has a secret dream, one she hasn’t even told her mom. Emma hopes to be the first person in her family to earn a college degree.
2005.
Washington, D.C. Five times in the past 11 years (1995, 1997, 1999, 2003, and 2005), a minority of far-right lawmakers have introduced the Citizenship Reform Act, which would do away with “birthright citizenship.
” The doctrine of birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to all children born in the U.S., except the children of diplomats.
It is a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1868 to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War.
Of course, the Constitution trumps any law passed by Congress. However, proponents claim that if the law were passed and brought to the Supreme Court, it might somehow pass the test of constitutionality.
Shockingly, according to , 49% of American citizens say they agree with doing away with birthright citizenship.
I have got to believe that many of those citizens have just not thought the issue through. If there are many citizens who really do understand the ramifications of this proposal – the tragic consequences it would have for children like Emma, children born and raised in our country who know no other home but America – it would break my heart.
It is one thing to debate whether Miguel and Maria were right or wrong to cross the border in the first place, and what we should do to secure our borders.
But it is a much different question to propose that the solution is to deprive citizenship of children who become Americans exactly the same way almost all of the rest of us did – they were born and raised here.
There are valid points to weigh on both sides of the immigration debate. But when it comes to the children, there is nothing to debate.
If we turn our backs on our children, children like Emma and millions of others whose only home has ever been the United States of America, then we cease to be the country to which Angelina and Emma have frequently pledged their allegiance. Remember that country one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all? That should not be up for debate.
Posted by Terry Hull on April 12, 2006 to In my article, I responded to Rep. Ernest Istook’s proposal to declare English our official language. Istook, Oklahoma’s 5th District congressman, is a Republican candidate for governor this year.
In response to that article, Stephen Heggy has commented:
This sounds like more of a vote-getting ploy to cater to the rural groups in Oklahoma. Istook has to fight the pro-Democrat farmers and this is one way to do it (sadly).
Mr.
Heggy is a freshman political science major at Oklahoma State University. He also happens to be the son of one of the authors of this blog.
Stephen, I m not sure you are right that Istook s nativistic attitude plays better in rural Oklahoma than in the suburbs (like the OKC suburb of Warr Acres, where Istook lives).
Here in the Southwest, rural citizens are becoming increasingly accustomed to living and working alongside Hispanic immigrants (whether legal or otherwise) from Mexico and other Latin American countries. I think perhaps it is in the suburbs where you are more likely to find those people who so dearly cherish sameness. Same houses, same cars, skin the same pale shade of brown, and the peculiar longing for just one language.
In rural Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and the states west of here, immigrants have become a vital part of the economy, especially in such sectors as farming and meat-processing. The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group, has prepared an excellent 44-page report, . According to that report:
• About 65% of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.
S. are employed. That includes all unauthorized migrants: men, women, children and senior citizens.
About 92% of the adult male illegal immigrants are employed.
• How are they employed? 33% in the service industry (e.
g., hotels, domestics, food service); 17% in construction and extraction; 16% in production, installation and repair; 3% farming.
More importantly, looking at it from the perspective of the rural economy:
• Unauthorized migrants comprise 23% of all workers employed in U.
S. farming occupations.
• They comprise 12% of all workers in meat-packing and meat-processing occupations.
On Monday, millions of citizens and immigrants participated in rallies across the country objecting to the draconian immigration measures desired by those on the far right. Rallies took place in such places as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and Garden City, Kansas.
Garden City, Kansas?
That’s right, demonstrations were , including 3,000 protestors in Garden City, a city of 30,000 in Southwest Kansas that is nearly 50% Hispanic. Garden City is the site of a huge Tyson meat-packing plant as well as other food manufacturers.
They [Garden City] are about 20 years ahead of many other meat packing cities out there.
My own hometown, Great Bend, continues to have a dwindling population. Vrtually the only newcomers are Hispanic, and let me tell you, they were NOT greeted with open arms when I was in high school 15 years ago. It was embarrassing and shameful.
I m pleased to say that slow but steady changes in attitude have occurred, now that people in the town recognize that most of the new businesses and homeowners are Hispanics. My own xenophobic parents have started praising the hard working attitude of these folks, and rave about their cooking. My linguistically challenged mother started taking conversational Spanish classes.
My impression of Garden City is that they recognized this earlier than most small western Kansas meatpacking towns, and offered incentives for migrants to become locals, including things like assisting them in obtaining loans to start businesses and own homes. The migrant-turned-community member is who will make or break these small, dying towns. Embrace the influx of migrants and turn them into townies, or turn the cold shoulder, and watch your town continue to wither and die.
But the Stepfordites are so enamored of pale skin and the Queen’s English that they are willing to cut off their own upturned noses to spite their faces. They have not given much thought to what would happen to our economy if we somehow deported all 12 million illegal immigrants overnight. Conservative columnist George Will calculates that it would take 200,000 buses in a caravan stretching bumper-to-bumper from San Diego to Alaska to deport all illegals.
Besides, Will observes, “There are no plausible incentives to get [them] to board the buses.” In Will writes:
Conservatives should want, as the president proposes, a guest worker program to supply what the U.S.
economy demands immigrant labor for entry-level jobs. Conservatives should favor a policy of encouraging unlimited immigration by educated people with math, engineering, technology or science skills that America s education system is not sufficiently supplying. And conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society s crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English.
Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status “amnesty.”
But I doubt that most white suburbanites care much more about the fate of rural America than they care about the needs of foreign-born workers. So let me talk about something middle-class and upperclass suburb-dwellers care about: cost of living.
According to the aforementioned Pew report, from 20% to 30% of many construction-related skills are provided in the U.S. by unauthorized migrants.
We’re talking about painters, roofers, dry-wallers, tile-layers, cement and brick masons and the like. So, before you pack up all of those illegals and send them back home, you better make sure you have all of your home remodeling and repair projects done. And if you’re planning on trading up to a nicer home, you better do it now.
Because once you remove all the illegal aliens, the cost of construction, maintenance and repair in the suburbs is going to go sky high. Now are we talking about something you care about? Good piece by columnist Maggie Galagher on the immigration/border debate.
An excerpt:
Don t call me anti-immigration. Count me among the 17 percent of Americans in the new Pew poll who say they d support raising the legal immigration quotas. I m also vigorously opposed to any law that criminalizes charity for people who need food, clothing or medical care.
But I do want one thing from Congress: Come up with a plan to secure our borders. What about the 12 million people already here? As far as I can tell, they are not a crisis.
Certainly the pro-immigration lobby says these people are good for the economy, so why the urgency about documenting them?
Galagher cites poll numbers which show the American people are conflicted on this hot issue. See the whole piece:
Posted by Terry Hull on April 06, 2006 to I have a simple question for those on the far right who not only want beefed up border security, but also are vehemently opposed to any kind of guest worker program or other proposal that would allow the millions of illegal immigrants who are already living peacefully and productively in the U.
S. to achieve legal status. My question: What are you afraid of?
Is it human beings you dislike? Do you look upon each additional person who enters our country as a burden? Is each additional human just another problem to deal with?
Do you live by a scarce resources mentality? The fewer human beings the better? The fewer people, the bigger your piece of pie?
By the same reasoning, do you support abortion and euthanasia?
Or is it that the majority of illegal immigrants to the U.S.
are from Mexico and other Latin American countries? Is it Hispanics/Latinos that you dislike? If so, what is it about Latin Americans that you dislike so much?
Is it the color of their skin? Is it their language? Is it the music they listen to?
Is it that most Latin Americans are full or part Native American? Is it actually Native Americans you dislike?
Or is your issue that the vast majority of illegal immigrants lived in desperate poverty in their native country, and they came to the U.
S. looking for work to support their families? Is it the fact that they are so poor that makes them so distasteful to you?
Do you consider poor people an irritation, an eyesore, a burden, a threat? Are we back to dividing up that pie? Are you worried you won t get a big enough piece?
Which is it? That they are poor? Or Native American?
Or Hispanic? Or brown-skinned? Or do you just hate all humans?
I would love to hear an explanation. Posted by Terry Hull on March 29, 2006 to Novelist Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez is rightfully angry about common ignorance and sloppy media coverage of Hispanic Americans and “the immigration problem.” She makes 16 cogent points on the topic.
Here are some excerpts (paraphrased); a link to the entire post is below.
• The vast majority (75%) of U.S.
Hispanics were born and raised here, including many who have roots that predate the pilgrims.
• You can be a Mexican American and never have had an ancestor cross the U.S.
border, because a huge part of the U.S. used to be Mexico.
• English only? Then you may no longer say the names of most U.S.
states. Only seven states have English names; the rest are Spanish or Native American. Spanish names which would be excluded by “English only” include California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida, as well as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas, and thousands of other U.
S. cities.
• The majority of Hispanics in the U.
S. speak English as a first language. The Pew Center for Hispanic Research found that by the third generation, all Latin American immigrant descendents 100% speak English as their primary language.
• The U.S. has two international borders, not one.
To date, not a single terrorist has come to the U.S. through Mexico.
At least two suspected terrorists have arrived here through Canada.
• The only people who can claim to be true “Americans” are Native Americans.
• Most Mexicans are Native Americans.
[My note: 80% of Mexicans are all or part Amerindian (native American)].
• Check for plans to give Halliburton the contract to build the proposed wall along the U.S.
-Mexico border.
Hat Tip to Independent Christian Voice for the Valdes-Rodriguez link. Read ICV s article, Posted by Terry Hull on March 24, 2006 to Republican Congressman Ernest Istook is running for governor of Oklahoma.
One of the hot-button issues Istook has raised is that Oklahoma should declare English its official language. The congressman also seeks such .
If Istook succeeds, it will be none too soon.
No news yet from Democratic incumbent Brad Henry or other Republican gubernatorial candidates on which languages they are supporting. English sure has my support, and I’m glad to know it has Istook’s, too.
Personally, I’m sick and tired of people crossing our borders, bringing with them their foreign cultures, foreign foods, and foreign languages.
Melting pot, schmelting pot. Everywhere I go these days I’m surrounded by indecipherable foreign words. It boggles the mind.
Let’s get this thing settled once and for all. We speak English here, thank you, and you can just take all those funny-sounding foreign words back where you came from.
I’m especially talking about French.
Everywhere I turn, it’s French this and French that. We have let so many Frenchisms slip into our everyday vocabulary that I don’t know if we’re speaking English or Franglish. Come on, it’s not pants (short for the sissy French word, “pantaloons”), it’s trousers.
It’s not gasoline, it’s petrol. And for English’s sake, it’s not French fries, it’s chips. Can you imagine how the British must feel when they come to America and see how the Francophiles among us have convoluted the Queen’s English on this side of the pond!
Don’t you just hate it when you hear someone order “a la carte,” or tell you they are “en route,” or ask you to give them “carte blanche,” or attempt to achieve a “coup d’etat.” Every business person wants to be an “entrepreneur.” Every cook wants to be a “gourmet.
” If it’s good, it can’t just be good, it has to be “par excellence.” If it’s bad, it’s not just a mistake, it’s a “faux pas,” or even worse, a “gaffe.” Some of these words are hard to say, and they are all hard to spell.
Who needs them! I’m with Rep. Istook.
Why can’t we just stick to plain old English?
Of course, the place where the French have really got us in a chokehold is in the kitchen. With all their hors d’oeuvres and sautés and soufflés, everything slathered with mayonnaise and marinades.
French toast. French bread. French pastry.
French vanilla. French dressing. French fries.
Man, those French love to eat.
The French have even infiltrated our military, so much so that I believe it has become a national security issue. Our men and women in uniform wear “camouflage,” carry “bayonets,” engage in “sabotage” and “espionage,” and have frequent “rendezvous.
” (What’s the plural of rendezvous, anyway? Can’t the French get anything right?)
Even conservatives admit that they prefer it “laissez faire.
” I guess the French really have won. Fait accompli.
Have you ever received an invitation to a party from some effete Francophile who noted on the card, “RSVP?
” Wink, wink. Don’t think you’re fooling me, you cosmopolitan snob. I know what your little French abbreviation means.
“Repondez, s’il vous plait,” my foot. It’s just another way of saying, “Only French-lovers need reply.”
The other day I was at IHOP, and the guy at the next table ordered an “omelette.
” Give me a break. That’s an egg pancake around here, mister. Then the woman he was with ordered a “Spanish omelette.
” Isn’t that so multi-cultural it makes you gag! This is the good ole U.S.
of A. Have the Western omelette err, I mean the Western fried egg – you French-lover.
I don’t want the soup “du jour” and I don’t want my potatoes “au gratin” and I don’t want my steaks “filet mignon.
” I don’t want to wear cologne, I don’t want to watch films noir, and I don’t want to live on a cul-de-sac (well, actually, cul-de-sacs are kind of nice, but I’m no Frank, so I prefer to call them circle drives). I don’t want to be avante-garde or bon vivant or have panache or savoir faire. I just want to be a good old red-white-and-blue American.
Did you know that there are more than 13 million Frenchies, I mean French-Americans (I sure wouldn’t want to be politically incorrect) in the United States! Almost 2 million of them speak French as the primary language in their homes, according to the U.S.
census. That’s right here in America! Is there any hope for our nation?
How many of them are even here lawfully? How many of them have illegally crossed the U.S.
-Canadian border? When are we going to finally beef up our border security? Congress is talking about erecting a 15-foot wall along the U.
S.-Mexican border, but they’ve got it all wrong. That’s not going to stop the French invasion.
What we really need is a 4,000-mile wall running along the U.S.-Canadian border.
It’ll cost a pretty penny, but it will be worth every dime if it helps to keep our families safe – safe from the French, and all of their French foods and French ways and funny French words.
Let’s be honest and call a frog a frog. They look different than us.
They think differently than us. They talk differently than us. And they’re taking over our country, while we sit quietly by and do nothing.
America is quickly becoming the Western States of the French Republic. You can’t watch TV or see a movie anymore without being bombarded with Frenchies. Robin Williams.
Robert Duvall. Angelina Jolie. Ellen DeGeneres.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus. Zooey Deschanel. Stephen Colbert.
The list goes on and on. Back in the day, we all thought Shelley Fabares was cute as a button and we all loved Robert Goulet, but it’s gotten way out of hand.
We must draw the line somewhere, and Rep.
Istook is exactly right about where. Let’s make English the official language and start cracking down on the use of all these French words in our government, our schools, and everywhere else you turn. If we don’t do something, one day all of our kids will be wearing sissy berets and going around saying “oui, oui” and “bon voyage” and “déjà vu” and “c est la vie.
”
This is America, doggonit, and as long as Lady Liberty continues to stand in New York harbor, as long as it still says “E pluribus unum” on our coins, and as long as this state is still proud to claim its Choctaw name, “Oklahoma,” then English is the only language for me. And that’s how I’m going to decide my vote in the upcoming gubernatorial election.
Posted by Terry Hull on March 06, 2006 to , On Terra Extraneus’ Open Mic page, Stephen Heggy, a student at Oklahoma State University, has written:
Hey, did you guys hear about Cardinal Mahony in California that told his congregation that he did not approve of the new immigration law about to be passed and would advise his priests and deacons not to abide by it.
He also said that immigration was not a national security issue. (The O’Reilly Factor quoted him as saying that terrorists would not trek through the desert to enter the country, but I couldn’t find any other source that repeated that.) What do you think of that?
Thanks for your question, Stephen.
Cardinal Roger Mahony is the Archbishop of Los Angeles and one of the 179 cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church. He oversees a “parish” of more than 4 million Catholics.
In other words, he is a very influential individual. He is recognized as one of the most politically liberal Catholic leaders in the U.S.
He has been an outspoken advocate on behalf of legal and illegal immigrants.
Cardinal Mahony has voiced his strong objection to the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (HR 4437), which was passed by the U.S.
House of Representatives on Dec. 16, 2005. As you say, Stephen, the proposed legislation has not become law.
After House passage it was referred to the Senate, where the bill could die or could go through major change before becoming law.
Among its numerous provisions, HR 4437 would make it a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison for an individual to provide assistance to an illegal alien. What Mahony fears is that the bill would make it a crime for churches and other helping agencies to help people in need.
After all, Jesus specifically commanded us to provide loving aid to strangers (Matthew 25:37-40), and he didn t tell us to check their papers first.
However, a spokesman for Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R-Wis.), the lawmaker who authored the bill, said Mahony and others who object to the bill are guilty of “hysteria.” Jeff Lungren said HR 4437 doesn’t target churches or helping agencies, but targets border smugglers.
Lundgren told the :
Everyone seems to understand the intent. It is intended to go after smugglers [Addressing church leaders who oppose the bill, Lungren said,] You say we’re going after you? Well, are people coming after you right now, because that s the current law?
Well, let’s just take a look at the current law, and how HR 4437 would change the law. The current law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, says (in Sec. 274) that a person commits a felony if he:
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States.
Sensenbrenner’s bill (Sec. 202, HR 4437) would change the wording of that paragraph so that a person commits a felony if he:
assists, encourages, directs, or induces [an illegal alien] to reside in or remain in the United States.
So, Lungren isn’t exactly right when he says the new bill is the same as the current law.
The current law forbids “encouraging” or “inducing” the residency of illegal aliens, but the new bill would go beyond that to forbid “assisting” such aliens. I share the cardinal’s concern that the new language might prompt an over-eager law enforcement officer or prosecutor to attempt to punish a priest, minister, doctor, nurse, or social worker for offering medical treatment, a meal, or a cold glass of water to an illegal alien.
I have no objection to punishing those who are actively promoting illegal immigration, but I would certainly object to any attempt to prevent Christians from simply providing assistance to a fellow human being, regardless of their residency status.
If it is true that the House bill does not intend to stop an individual from doing simple acts of kindness for a neighbor in the name of Christ, then the language should be clarified before it becomes law. Despite Lungren’s cheap shot about the cardinal’s “hysteria,” Cardinal Mahony was right to sound the alarm about this bill now, before it becomes law.
If the government were ever to attempt to use any immigration law to force churches to check people’s papers before providing assistance, such as food, clothing, or temporary shelter, then I’m with Cardinal Mahony.
When a person turns to me in my capacity as the minister of a church for help, I will continue to provide whatever help I believe is appropriate, according to my understanding of the Scriptures, in the name of the Lord. I support the work of the Immigration Service and the Border Patrol, but I will not attempt to do their work when someone turns to me as a minister of Christ.
I applaud Cardinal Mahony for bringing this issue to national attention while there is still time to tidy up the language of the immigration bill.
But I’m not worried about it. If the government were ever to attempt to prevent a church from carrying out its God-given mission, I am confident that the courts would remind the government of the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion.
This is an issue of religious freedom, and so far, this is still a free country.
Posted by Rod Heggy on January 28, 2006 to reported that inquiries are being conducted about possible incursions into the United States by either regular Mexican military personnel equipped with Humvees and fifty caliber machine guns or by imposters yet similarly equipped. If the military hardware is owned by the Mexican government, then it is either stolen or rented under very loose terms, uniforms included. Moreover, the military appearing Mexican troops appear to be escorting illegal drug convoys.
I have no doubt that there are those that believe our porous southern border is hopelessly so. But, it seems more likely it is a matter of money. In the 21st century, we should be able to place satellites in geosynchronous orbit capable of monitoring our southern borders.
We should be able to afford to fly squadrons of A-10 Thunderbolts, better known as Warthogs, up and down our borders from several air bases in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. If the Warthogs can find and destroy tanks, escort troops and have a range of 800 miles, coordinated with squadrons of helicopters, they could close the border, if need be. A couple of squadrons of Abrams M1A1 tanks running up and down the border on live fire training exercises might tighten things up, too.
The point is deterrence. Most likely, a couple of shots over the heads of these invaders would likely end the problem. Photographing them would also assist conventional law enforcement.
The U. S. Border Patrol is not trained or equipped to confront foreign military units, especially rogues, nor military weapons.
The Patrol is not large enough to protect our northern and southern borders, nor the coasts, from penetration by any determined group. The Patrol should have the support of the military and the military budget would only need to be increased incrementally to sustain such an effort.
The U.
S. Border Patrol has more than enough to do regulating entry by individuals. Our thousands of miles of border can only protected by the military.
That is the only source of technology, weapons and trained manpower necessary to deal with the issues created by terrain, rogue military incursions, and terrorists traveling enmass supported by foreign militaries.
The alternative is to ask conventional law enforcement forces to under take major new investments in equipment, weapons, technology and training. While it is true we do not want to try and use our military as policemen, we do not want to be forced to convert our para-military police forces into actual military units.
Not only is that not cost effective, it has other negative implications, as well, in confusion of mission and tactics.
News RSS